War on Terror in a Nutshell
I don’t have time for a long, insightful (or pretentious, take your pick) post on terrorism, so I’ll just offer this thought:
A few dudes, who are now in custody, plan an attack on aircraft.
The response? Take away our water bottles.
I know that Timothy McVeigh is dead, and I know that my wife is a good person, but I took away my wife’s scissors anyway. It just seemed like the safe thing to do.
« « Dear Hezbollah: Keep Your Rockets. Love, Israel | Main | (Updated)U.S. to Take Darwin Award? » »
Comment by jw —
August 10, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
Several reports I have read this evening have it that not all the conspirators ARE in custody yet. The authorities do not seem to be certain how many more individuals might be involved.
Comment by Jennifer —
August 10, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
I think right now they’re implying it’s temporary. I doubt it’ll stay temporary for long.
Comment by solarjetman —
August 11, 2006 @ 12:23 am
The policy will probably end up similar to stadium security policy – you can bring in water bottles, as long as they’ve got the factory seal.
Comment by moonbiter —
August 11, 2006 @ 1:42 am
Even unsuccessful terrorist plots are successful when the authorities and news media try to scare the populace with chilling tales of what might have happened. We once had a president who said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Whatever happened to the spirit behind those words?
Comment by Thoreau —
August 11, 2006 @ 7:33 am
jw-
I see your point. If it’s temporary while suspects are on the loose, then I guess I can tolerate it.
But Bin Laden is on the loose nearly 5 years after 9/11.
I fear that Jennifer is right.
Comment by Phillip J. Birmingham —
August 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
The policy will probably end up similar to stadium security policy – you can bring in water bottles, as long as they’ve got the factory seal.
That works for stadiums because it’s too much trouble to go buy new caps for PET bottles to give them that “factory seal” look, just to sneak booze into the stadium to save a few bucks.
I’m afraid that it’s going to remain in effect, too. It’s too damn convenient for the airlines, for one thing.
Comment by Species 8 —
August 11, 2006 @ 9:06 am
Slightly OT: I realise visual perspective can be misleading, but this photo, makes it look like JFK Airport is being guarded by munchkins. If setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq will embolden the terrorists, what do images like this cause?
Anyway, it also reminded me of last days of WWII, when the German army was using young boys and old men to fight the Allied forces.
Comment by IOZ —
August 11, 2006 @ 9:34 am
Just last night I got a little too drunk at the bar and was yelling at some poor, uncomfortable schmuck unwanting of my attentions, “These goddamn energy drinks! This damn Red Bull crap! It’s a threat to civilization, I tell ya.” I banged my hand on the bar for emphasis. He edged away.
Comment by Fred Fisheater —
August 11, 2006 @ 9:40 am
What happens if you freeze your water bottle? its not a liquid then, is it?
My only guess is Guantanamo.
Comment by IOZ —
August 11, 2006 @ 10:42 am
Fred raises a good point. I can picture the signage now:
Comment by linguist —
August 11, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Actually, there must have been some sort of policy re: water bottles in place already. I’ve twice been asked to take a drink in front of the TSA so they can be sure it’s water.
Comment by Jackmormon —
August 11, 2006 @ 11:02 am
More likely is that travelers have to buy $5 “pre-screened” water bottles within security, though.
Comment by neil —
August 11, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Yeah, that makes somewhat more sense, Jackmormon — although right now, you are not even allowed to bring on bottles bought in the pre-screening area.
I can’t believe that this madness will last for long, and if it does, I will be hard-pressed to return to the U.S. I’m seriously considering flying into Canada or Mexico and taking land transport the rest of the way in. Less of a humiliating inconvenience than flying, I should think.
Comment by neil —
August 11, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Uh, I meant the pre-boarding area.
Comment by Stevo Darkly —
August 11, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
I wonder if they’ll let me take aboard my contact lens saline solution if I squeeze some into my eyes.
Comment by Leonard —
August 11, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
The terrorists will do anything to kill us all, Stevo, including squeezing explosives into their eyes.
Comment by Scorpio —
August 11, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
“Nothing to fear but fear itself” is a Democrat’s point of view. the Republican point of view is being shoved down our throats day after day, that one ought fear the foreigner, the brown, the female, the scientist … everything but the White Boyz who are stealing our liberty and despoiling our planet. Nice, huh?
Comment by Dshan —
August 11, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
One of the 24 “terrorists” has already been released with no charges laid or contemplated. Another faces court on Monday and may be released then due to lack of evidence, the rest are still being “questioned”. Sound familiar?
Meanwhile with thousands of their citizens supposedly still under imminent threat of attack, security alerts at red, and air travel in chaos all over the world, Blair and Bush are both still on their summer vacations! Blair isn’t even in the UK…
It’s called getting Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and various British political scandals off the front pages, and it’s working.
Comment by Dave Bell —
August 12, 2006 @ 7:59 am
Philippine Airlines Flight 434 seems to be the model being used to drive the security.
Nitroglycerin brought onto the plane disguised as contact lens cleaner, with the detonator using a gimmicked digital watch as timer (not needed by a suicide bomber) and an external battery (found in those personal electronic devices).
No need for on-plane chemistry.
Of course, Lockerbie was a bomb hidden in an electronic device in hold baggage. One hopes they have better security checks there.
My prediction: don’t plan on taking liquids and anything that might contain a large battery into the cabin. Expect theft of valuables from hold baggage to skyrocket. Digital watches might be allowed, but not cameras. And they won’t trust a minimum-wage TSA employee to distinguish a battery-free Leica film camera from a battery-packed potential bomb-trigger.
Comment by Jaybird —
August 12, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Let’s say that you’re a politician.
Let’s say that your job is dependent upon making ignorant people happy.
Let’s say that the world is a scary and chaotic place.
Let’s say that a huge number of people are screaming that something be done to make the world less scary and chaotic.
And let’s say that you want to get re-elected.
Now let’s say that you find yourself with a choice between:
A) Explaining that the world is a scary and chaotic place and government paternalism will result in a citizenry that is in a perpetual state of arrested adolescence
B) Taking away people’s water bottles and pointing out to them that this may be inconvenient, but Something Needed To Be Done and this will Protect The Children.
Do you think that someone who really wants to be re-elected will pick A?
Really?